What's better for spin: stiff or soft?

I hit flat and am trying to transition to spin. I find that hitting with spin is far more unpredictable and difficult to aim. Technique aside, do you think that soft racquets offer more predictability and control, or do you think a stiff racquet is better for this purpose?

The theory is that stiff racquets with a large stringbed suit heavy topspin baseline bashing best. Because racquet head moves faster up when hitting through the ball you need a bigger sweet spot. Pure drives and aeropro drives suit that well, but they often kill your arm in couple of months. Pro Kennex 315 does the job better without destroying your joints.

Prince EXO3 Tour is a great frame for flat hitters looking to get into the spin game. It's low power so it will let you swing out and it has bigger racket head to give you margin get to brush the ball more.

Other good frames for flat hitters looking to get into more of a spin game:

As usual, what is "better"?
If a soft racket gives you to confidence to hit thru the ball hard with a fast swing, it's "better".
If a stiff racket flies off your racketface quickly, it's "better", but only if you have the confidence to swing it fast.

For flat hitting, I definitely prefer a soft racquet ( and a dense pattern ). I have a feeling that the ball goes where I direct it. But whenever I try to hit spin, the ball dances all over the place (deep and short, and side-to-side), and just does not go when I want it to. I am wondering if I should spring up for a stiff racquet, and if that will give me better control of depth and angle.

In anticipation of some coming suggestions: I have tried stringing tight (and even very tight). That did not improve spin at all. In fact, it made it worse.
It became even less predictable and even more eratic.

The things that I have in mind are Yonex MP Tour-5: very light, 10 pt HL == whippy, with open pattern, also very soft.
or
Donnay Silver: very stiff and lightweight, low swingweight, I assume whippy.

People whom I play with -- those who generate considerable spin -- use Babolat and Head Extreme. Both are eratic, and I win over them most of the time, but their spin is something that my game lacks.

As usual, what is "better"?
If a soft racket gives you to confidence to hit thru the ball hard with a fast swing, it's "better".
If a stiff racket flies off your racketface quickly, it's "better", but only if you have the confidence to swing it fast.

Click to expand...

Exactly this. A light racquet, generally less stiff, can really produce some spin when swung fast like a pro would. In both cases, the former would still work better for topspin, worse for slice or flat shots; and it'd get pushed around easier, regardless.

Whats wrong with hitting it flat if it works forYOU? Dont worry about your friends spin. you said you are beating them, right?

Click to expand...

Hitting flat generally sends the ball right into your opponent's strike zone, if the ball goes near them, iirc. It's also generally harder to hit a good flat shot off of a good topspin shot than vice-versa, though that still depends on the player.

^^^ I'm just the opposite. If I get a topspinner that hits balls that bounce up shoulder high I'm going to flatten them out and hit winners all day. If I get a flat hitter that keeps the ball low I have to hit topspin back to clear the net and thus gives my opponent time to recover. I have to be much more patient against flat hitters.

For flat hitting, I definitely prefer a soft racquet ( and a dense pattern ). I have a feeling that the ball goes where I direct it. But whenever I try to hit spin, the ball dances all over the place (deep and short, and side-to-side), and just does not go when I want it to. I am wondering if I should spring up for a stiff racquet, and if that will give me better control of depth and angle.

In anticipation of some coming suggestions: I have tried stringing tight (and even very tight). That did not improve spin at all. In fact, it made it worse.
It became even less predictable and even more eratic.

The things that I have in mind are Yonex MP Tour-5: very light, 10 pt HL == whippy, with open pattern, also very soft.
or
Donnay Silver: very stiff and lightweight, low swingweight, I assume whippy.

People whom I play with -- those who generate considerable spin -- use Babolat and Head Extreme. Both are eratic, and I win over them most of the time, but their spin is something that my game lacks.

Click to expand...

That really sounds like technique, not a racket problem.

Still, if you want to maximize spin game from your racket string it with soft multi strings on main (NRG2) and soft poly on cross (Hyperion) at mid tension.

prince exo tour 100: open string pattern
excellent with spin(even on good or bad acceleration)
not good on flat shots (lose control)
not good on direction - flex seems to influence confidence and direction

current racket:
wilson blx surge (green): open string pattern
good with spin
very good on flat shots
good with direction

I basically went for a racket that is similar to the k-blade98, but which is lighter and has more natural spin as well as fewer misshits.

Summary:
In my opinion, on average, if you want to hit flatter: go for a stiffer denser pattern
if you want more spin, go for the flexier frame with open string patterns.
Acceleration and headspeed is also a big factor as well as your kind of follow through. When i switched from the 03 blue to the k-blade, i had to adapt my stroke to be more around my body. When i switched to the 03 black, it was hard to control the power, and had to hit with more brush. When i switched to the exo tour, all fell in place except for the serve mainly....now on a stiffer frame again and so things goes

The rackets that generated that extra kick forward for me were stiff rackets: PDR2012, TF Speedflex 300, Vcore 100s, Organix V1 MP (on serve). There are also flexible frames that I find easy to consistently hit a low, penetrating & heavy ball. It really depends on the individual frame, not all stiff frames generate that much spin and not all flexy frames are easy to hit penetrating heavy shots with.

The big problem with this discussion is that it's almost impossible to know what racquet will churn out predictable rpm's for you. You might get insane spin from a dense patterned mid that's gummy-bear soft, but you may find a good fit with something light and snappy with no more than middle-weight.

Since you're trying to evolve into more of a spin hitter from a flat hitter though, I'd bet that you enjoy having at least some heft and stability in your racquet to be able to thump right through the ball. There might be a good fit for you among the 11.7-12+ oz. options that also have some softness to them - don't get too hung up on string patterns if you're going to demo a few frames.

Also, you might get some decent guidance if you can let us in on what frame you're using now. I agree with our pal Anton that you're going to need to address your technique very deliberately to tap into higher degrees of spin, but a different racquet may offer better behavior, too.

A mildly lighter alternative with similar flex may be easier to "whup" across the ball with greater head speed (a key to greater spin), but a softer frame of the same weight with a more mellow response may help you to swing more fully without spraying the ball around.

What the previous few poster said:
Stiff stick with high swing speed is the best, but your form has to be good enough so that you trust the mechanics and you know that the ball will come down as you swing out.
Soft stick lets you "cheat" on the swing. Its more forgiving.
Open bed causes more string movement which yields more spin. Oftentimes more movement is associated with loss of control. If your technique sucks then yes, more movement will cause more ball rotation and a higher launch angle which may or may not launch the ball long.

As posted be others, its different for every frame. I'm only posting generalizations.

I know we aren't talking scientifically, but if we were the soft racket when hit in the sweet spot imparts more spin.

Of course a larger racket that is stiff will be much more forgiving especially with fast swings and that's why I think it's considered the norm for many "spin players". Of course Fed has a mild/soft racket with a small head size so....

To me, thickness of beam also has an influence and should be considered. Thinner beams feel faster through the air...my success with spin on the k-blade98 and tour 100, were at least partially due to the thinner beams feeling faster through the air at the swing angle needed in your swing...

is there some actual science behind your claim of speaking scientifically?

There is nothing in racket flexing more that adds spin on the ball, if anything it causes less spin because there is less pressure on the strings.

You may swing harder with softer racket because you may not be as concerned with sending the ball too deep, that probably will add spin.

Click to expand...

A flexier frame does have more spin potential for the same swingpath than a stiffer frame.
When the frame flexes in the direction normal (perpendicular) to the stringbed upon impact of the ball with the stringbed, the strings are not stretched as much in the normal direction as they are with a stiffer frame.
With less normal stretch of the stringbed, the strings are freer to stretch more in the downward direction (assuming upward swingpath). The increased downward stretch of the stringbed means that more energy is available to be transferred into tangential force on the surface of the ball (upon upward stringbed snapback). Most of this extra tangential force manifests as increased rpm - the rest goes into increased launch angle, requiring the user to close the face more, which in turn further increases rpm.

A flexier frame does have more spin potential for the same swingpath than a stiffer frame.
When the frame flexes in the direction normal (perpendicular) to the stringbed upon impact of the ball with the stringbed, the strings are not stretched as much in the normal direction as they are with a stiffer frame.
With less normal stretch of the stringbed, the strings are freer to stretch more in the downward direction (assuming upward swingpath). The increased downward stretch of the stringbed means that more energy is available to be transferred into tangential force on the surface of the ball (upon upward stringbed snapback). Most of this extra tangential force manifests as increased rpm - the rest goes into increased launch angle, requiring the user to close the face more, which in turn further increases rpm.

Click to expand...

The pressure would be lessened in both directions - normal AND downward, right? They maybe are freer to move downward, but now there is also less force pushing down.

The pressure would be lessened in both directions - normal AND downward, right? They maybe are freer to move downward, but now there is also less force pushing down.

Click to expand...

The pressure on the stringbed is only lessened in the normal direction (assuming that the racquet has the same stiffness in the plane of the stringbed).

But this touches on an important point - the bending stiffness of racquets varies not only the plane perpendicular to the stringbed, but also in the plane of the stringbed.

Racquets that are stiffenend in the plane of the stringbed tend to be more spin-friendly than you might expect. Examples include the AeroPro Drive, the Prince More Technology frames (like NXG), the Prince O-ports frames, and some of the higher end Wilson's (like K6.1 95, which is highly reinforced in that plane in the throat).

The most spin friendly frames (not accounting for string pattern) are those where the ratio of bending stiffness in the plane of the stringbed to the bending stiffness in the plane perpendicular to the stringbed is very high.

I did my own careful experimentation on this subject 8 years ago, when I first discovered how much differences in stiffness could affect spin.

I demo'd about 20 different racquets of various designs (several at a time) to collect data. I then clamped the handle rigidly to my kitchen countertop, and suspended a 2kg weight from the center of the stringbed (I used a full half-gallon plastic orange juice container with a loop handle).

I measured the distance in mm that the tip of the racquet would deflect due to the suspended weight. Then I rotated the grip 90 degrees, and measured the same deflection in the other plane too. The 2kg weight was selected so that the deflections would approximately match up with Wilson's old si index scale - 2-3mm deflection for a Wilson Profile in the plane perpendicular to the stringbed.

The stiffness highest ratio I measured was for the K6.195 16x18. Not coincidently, this frame had the highest TW review rating for spin of any racquet tested at that time. The AeroPro drive was quite stiff in the plane of the stringbed, but since it was also stiff in the perpendicular plane, it's ratio was not as high as for the K6.195. The Wilson Profile had the lowest ratio of any frame I tested (not surprisingly, with 38mm beam). The Profile is by far the least spin-friendly frame I've ever used.

The bottom line is that for maximum spin, you want a thin-beam frame that is highly reinforced in the plane of the stringbed. These types of frames generally work best with tight string patterns to compensate for the extra spin potential from the stiffness ratio. On the other hand, frames with low stiffness ratios (really wide beams) will tend to require open patterns (or spin-friendly string setups) to compensate for the lack of inherent spin potential.

The pressure on the stringbed is only lessened in the normal direction (assuming that the racquet has the same stiffness in the plane of the stringbed).

But this touches on an important point - the bending stiffness of racquets varies not only the plane perpendicular to the stringbed, but also in the plane of the stringbed.

Racquets that are stiffenend in the plane of the stringbed tend to be more spin-friendly than you might expect. Examples include the AeroPro Drive, the Prince More Technology frames (like NXG), the Prince O-ports frames, and some of the higher end Wilson's (like K6.1 95, which is highly reinforced in that plane in the throat).

The most spin friendly frames (not accounting for string pattern) are those where the ratio of bending stiffness in the plane of the stringbed to the bending stiffness in the plane perpendicular to the stringbed is very high.

I did my own careful experimentation on this subject 8 years ago, when I first discovered how much differences in stiffness could affect spin.

I demo'd about 20 different racquets of various designs (several at a time) to collect data. I then clamped the handle rigidly to my kitchen countertop, and suspended a 2kg weight from the center of the stringbed (I used a full half-gallon plastic orange juice container with a loop handle).

I measured the distance in mm that the tip of the racquet would deflect due to the suspended weight. Then I rotated the grip 90 degrees, and measured the same deflection in the other plane too. The 2kg weight was selected so that the deflections would approximately match up with Wilson's old si index scale - 2-3mm deflection for a Wilson Profile in the plane perpendicular to the stringbed.

The stiffness highest ratio I measured was for the K6.195 16x18. Not coincidently, this frame had the highest TW review rating for spin of any racquet tested at that time. The AeroPro drive was quite stiff in the plane of the stringbed, but since it was also stiff in the perpendicular plane, it's ratio was not as high as for the K6.195. The Wilson Profile had the lowest ratio of any frame I tested (not surprisingly, with 38mm beam). The Profile is by far the least spin-friendly frame I've ever used.

The bottom line is that for maximum spin, you want a thin-beam frame that is highly reinforced in the plane of the stringbed. These types of frames generally work best with tight string patterns to compensate for the extra spin potential from the stiffness ratio. On the other hand, frames with low stiffness ratios (really wide beams) will tend to require open patterns (or spin-friendly string setups) to compensate for the lack of inherent spin potential.

Click to expand...

Interesting theory, but even without questioning methodology there is clearly a problem:

stiffness of a racket is not tested in stringbed plane, it is tested in normal to stringbed plane ONLY.

From your examples - Super spiny K 6.1 95 has flex rating of 69!

From your earlier comments one would draw conclusion that because k 6.1 95 is stiff, then therefore it is not as spin friendly as something similar specs but softer, for example Yonex RQiS 1 Tour, which is btw has quite low rebound angle (and I assume spin)

Interesting theory, but even without questioning methodology there is clearly a problem:

stiffness of a racket is not tested in stringbed plane, it is tested in normal to stringbed plane ONLY.

From your examples - Super spiny K 6.1 95 has flex rating of 69!

From your earlier comments one would draw conclusion that because k 6.1 95 is stiff, then therefore it is not as spin friendly as something similar specs but softer, for example Yonex RQiS 1 Tour, which is btw has quite low rebound angle (and I assume spin)

Click to expand...

I misrecalled the model. It was another red-and-white wilson with similar name that scored 86 for topspin. Don't think it was the ncode either. But I did measure the stiffness in both directions and I recall it only deflected 4 mm in plane, and 7mm in perp plane. 7mm was typical for a frame with mid 60s flex, but 4mm in plane was the stiffness I measured.

Interesting theory, but even without questioning methodology there is clearly a problem:

stiffness of a racket is not tested in stringbed plane, it is tested in normal to stringbed plane ONLY.

From your examples - Super spiny K 6.1 95 has flex rating of 69!

From your earlier comments one would draw conclusion that because k 6.1 95 is stiff, then therefore it is not as spin friendly as something similar specs but softer, for example Yonex RQiS 1 Tour, which is btw has quite low rebound angle (and I assume spin)

Click to expand...

I misrecalled the model. It was another red-and-white wilson with similar name that scored 86 for topspin. Don't think it was the ncode either. But I did measure the stiffness in both directions and I recall it only deflected 4 mm in plane, and 7mm in perp plane. 7mm in perp plane was typical for a frame with mid 60s flex, but 4mm in plane was the stiffest value I measured. I will try to dig up my spreadsheet.

Some notes:
dy = deflection in plane of stringbed
The Hammer Titanium 5.0 is indeed extremely UNspin-friendly, even though the string pattern is extremely open.
It's interesting to see that the POG's cross-bar appears to have a measurable stiffening effect in plane.
The deflections are high for the O3 Blue because it had a soft rubberized pallet that was not rigid, but I don't the ratio was affected much.

Trav, interesting stuff. What exactly do you mean by stiffness in the string bed plane and how did you measure it?

And did I understand correctly that you measured the stiffnes in the perpendicular plane by fixing the handle and suspending a weight from the middle of the stringbed? If so, how did you control for differences in strinbed stiffness between the various rackets?

Trav, interesting stuff. What exactly do you mean by stiffness in the string bed plane and how did you measure it?

And did I understand correctly that you measured the stiffnes in the perpendicular plane by fixing the handle and suspending a weight from the middle of the stringbed? If so, how did you control for differences in strinbed stiffness between the various rackets?

Click to expand...

The racquet handle is clamped on the countertop, and the rest of the frame cantilevered out. I then hang the weight from the center of the stringbed (modeling the point of impact). I measure the deflection of the tip (difference in height when weight is applied to center of stringbed).

I take the measurement with the racquetface directed upward (dx), and then also take the measurement with the racquetface facing to the side (dy).

The deflection of the tip is, for all practical purposes, independent of the deflection of the stringbed when weight is applied to the stringbed.

One other thing I forgot to mention, the stiffness ratios correlate extremely well with TW topspin ratings. The correlation becomes almost linear if the weighted ratio dx/(dy)^2 (or other higher power of dy) is used (the O3 Blue omitted from analysis due to soft pallet).
In other words, dy is a bigger factor than dx in determining spin potential. I have also found that dx and dy are both more important factors than string pattern.

2. Stiffer string beds (increased ball deformation -> additional spin as the ball returns to a round shape, similar to the overspin present in super balls, I think you sent me a paper on this back in 2006)

3. Stiffer hoops. ( dont understand what the deal is here)

Like Kaiser, I too am puzzling over what you mean by "stiffness in the string plane" perhaps you are advocating for stiffer hoops, to accompany the flexible throat? And if that's correct, could you elaborate on that particular concept? Im kinda fuzzy on that.

Some notes:
dy = deflection in plane of stringbed
The Hammer Titanium 5.0 is indeed extremely UNspin-friendly, even though the string pattern is extremely open.
It's interesting to see that the POG's cross-bar appears to have a measurable stiffening effect in plane.
The deflections are high for the O3 Blue because it had a soft rubberized pallet that was not rigid, but I don't the ratio was affected much.

Click to expand...

Problem remains - Wilson nSix-One 95 also had a very high stiffness rating (and feel) as well and produced more spin than a softer racket witha similar spec, but considerably softer Yonex I mentioned. 500mp btw had more open pattern then the n95.

Basically the problem is that there is no ratio data, there is only data for stiffens in normal to string bed plane. I can't look at the racket stats on tennis warehouse and conclude how good a racket would be for spin.

Jack - when RDC machine tests stiffness it applies pressure to racket at 90 degrees to racket as it lays flat. 90 degrees angle is called "normal to". So RDC machine tests stiffness in a plane normal to stringbed plane

===----==
^

If you were to apply pressure to a racket that lays on it's side that would be testing stiffness in the plane of stringbed plane:

2. Stiffer string beds (increased ball deformation -> additional spin as the ball returns to a round shape, similar to the overspin present in super balls, I think you sent me a paper on this back in 2006)

Click to expand...

The effect of sringbed stiffness on spin is complex. Yes, increased ball deformation leads to more spin. But it may be at a cost of less string stretching. So in some cases stiffening a stringbed will increase spin, but in many cases it will actually reduce spin.

After much experimentation with a variety of string types and patterns, I currently advocate using a stringbed that is dense and stiff in the center, but open and deformable at the periphery. I skip the top and bottom cross and the outer mains on my current racquet to turn an 18x20 into a 16x18 that is dense in the center. The stiffness in the center where the ball meets the strings is important for control - if the center of the stringbed is soft, the ball will dent into it, causing launch angle to be more dependent on swingpath and incoming spin. You don't want that - if the stringbed does not dent, the launch angle is more independent of the incoming spin and swingpath, so the launch angle is determined mostly by racquetface angle, giving optimal control. Having a more open periphery lets the center of the stringbed deflect more to increase spin and power.

The type of spin matters. Spin is less useful if the added bit gives high launch angle. It's much better to have high rpm with low launch angle. As a rule of thumb, the "good" type of spin is easiest to get with a really dense stringbed strung really loose with strings that slide against each other well. The "bad" type of spin tends to be produced in very open patterns unless they are strung very tight.

Like Kaiser, I too am puzzling over what you mean by "stiffness in the string plane" perhaps you are advocating for stiffer hoops, to accompany the flexible throat? And if that's correct, could you elaborate on that particular concept? Im kinda fuzzy on that.

Click to expand...

Stiffness in the stringplane means resistance to bending when you clamp the handle and pull the racquet toward the 3 or 9 edge of the hoop. An Aeropro Drive, for example, is widened in the throat to counter this type of bending, making the frame more spin-friendly. The POG and NXG frames too, are reinforced in this direction with the cross-bar, making them more spin-friendly.

My NXG mids took my assumptions regarding racquet types, string patterns, and spin production and planted them all firmly on their ear. While those have probably the most dense pattern in any graphite frame I've owned, they probably also rank among the greatest spin-factories I've ever used.

The type of spin matters. Spin is less useful if the added bit gives high launch angle. It's much better to have high rpm with low launch angle. As a rule of thumb, the "good" type of spin is easiest to get with a really dense stringbed strung really loose with strings that slide against each other well. The "bad" type of spin tends to be produced in very open patterns unless they are strung very tight.

Click to expand...

Yep that's ideally what I'm after - more spin but at the same time keep the launch angle low.

Yep that's ideally what I'm after - more spin but at the same time keep the launch angle low.

Click to expand...

The racquet that gave me the most amazing spin while still having low launch angle was the BLX Pro Tour. I had it strung with kevlar/poly in the low 40s.
It has just about the densest patterned you can buy. Unfortunately, I had to return the one I bought from TW because it had a misaligned pallet, and they had no more in stock to replace it.

On the other end of the spectrum, I had to move on from the O3 Red because the extremely open pattern was not a good match for the extremely spin-friendly stiffness ratio. The launch angle was just too extreme, especially with spin-friendly string setups. That's why I'm not really tempted by the Steam 99s at all.

I just ordered a BLX Blade to replace my BLX Pro Tour to have something similar to play around with, but I don't think the Blade has as dense a pattern as the Pro Tour though.

My NXG mids took my assumptions regarding racquet types, string patterns, and spin production and planted them all firmly on their ear. While those have probably the most dense pattern in any graphite frame I've owned, they probably also rank among the greatest spin-factories I've ever used.

Click to expand...

The NXG frames have a lot features that make them extra spin friendly:

1. The NXG has a lot of tailweighting (part of the triple-threat technology). It has a buttcap that weighs about twice as heavy as typical frame due to the thickened see-through base. It also has a silcone rubber insert underneath the butt cap that adds another 4g. And on top of that, the handle is much heavier than most frames due to the 4-tube design. If anyone doubts the spin effects of tailweighting - try an experiment of tacking 2-3 ounces of weight to the end of the butt - the increase in dwell time and softness of impact will be very noticeable.

2. The NXG is polarized - the added mass in the hoop is added at the 11 and 1 positions - the other part of the "triple-threat" technology. This gives the NXG low dynamic stiffness. If you add mass the throat, the NXG stiffens a lot, and its spin potential goes down.

3. The NXG is flexible.

4. The NXG is stiffened in the plane of the stringbed with the crossbar.

5. The NXG sports the More technology (molded in two parts like the O3 frames). This also stiffens the frame in the plane of the stringbed, adding to spin potential.

6. The NXG is grommetless. This also effectively stiffens the frame in the plane of the stringbed to cause more lateral stringbed stretching, adding to spin potential.

I have not hit with the NXG mid, but I played the NXG OS for a couple of years. It is the most naturally spin-friendly frame I own.

The racquet that gave me the most amazing spin while still having low launch angle was the BLX Pro Tour. I had it strung with kevlar/poly in the low 40s.
It has just about the densest patterned you can buy. Unfortunately, I had to return the one I bought from TW because it had a misaligned pallet, and they had no more in stock to replace it.

On the other end of the spectrum, I had to move on from the O3 Red because the extremely open pattern was not a good match for the extremely spin-friendly stiffness ratio. The launch angle was just too extreme, especially with spin-friendly string setups. That's why I'm not really tempted by the Steam 99s at all.

I just ordered a BLX Blade to replace my BLX Pro Tour to have something similar to play around with, but I don't think the Blade has as dense a pattern as the Pro Tour though.

Click to expand...

I really hated the BLX Blade for some reason, didn't like the balance, it felt like a club and the feel was very dead from the stringbed.

I'm getting a lot of "good spin" out of Graphine Speed Pro right now, but I figured it had to do more with dense string pattern to keep the trajectory low and massive polarization for easy head speeds (and 100" head gives more brush up margin)

After much experimentation with a variety of string types and patterns, I currently advocate using a stringbed that is dense and stiff in the center, but open and deformable at the periphery. I skip the top and bottom cross and the outer mains on my current racquet to turn an 18x20 into a 16x18 that is dense in the center. The stiffness in the center where the ball meets the strings is important for control - if the center of the stringbed is soft, the ball will dent into it, causing launch angle to be more dependent on swingpath and incoming spin. You don't want that - if the stringbed does not dent, the launch angle is more independent of the incoming spin and swingpath, so the launch angle is determined mostly by racquetface angle, giving optimal control. Having a more open periphery lets the center of the stringbed deflect more to increase spin and power.

Click to expand...

Trav, what do you think of the setup Lendl has been using lately as a way to produce this type of stringbed? (Center mains and crosses copoly, peripheral mains and crosses gut.)

Trav, what do you think of the setup Lendl has been using lately as a way to produce this type of stringbed? (Center mains and crosses copoly, peripheral mains and crosses gut.)

Click to expand...

Analogous evolution.

I actually did quite a bit of experimenting with dividing the stringjob up into multiple separately tied off sections (in order to vary the tension for more even power level distribution without risk of tension equilibration, but I never tried varying the string type too). In the end, I came back to simply omitting the outer strings. It is more reproducible and less of a pain to string, and gives me a well-rounded stringbed that does everything well.

Traverjam, have you ever experimented with a pro tour 280 or pt57a? Mine seem to be very spin friendly despite the dense pattern could you explain why specifically those frames take to spin so well?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I've never tried those, and I can't comment on them without knowing anything about their specs.

However, I would say that in general, weight distribution and stiffness ratio are biggest determinants to spin potential (in that order), followed by string type, with string pattern/tension a distant fourth. For some reason everybody gives too much credit to strings and string pattern.

Sorry, I've never tried those, and I can't comment on them without knowing anything about their specs.

However, I would say that in general, weight distribution and stiffness ratio are biggest determinants to spin potential (in that order), followed by string type, with string pattern/tension a distant fourth. For some reason everybody gives too much credit to strings and string pattern.

Click to expand...

They are very soft, they flex in the hoop I believe. Stiffness in the 55-58 range, they are very light so require customization. In my case silicone is in the handle, and a good amount of lead under the bumper making them very polarized. Most of the lead is at 12. This makes them 12.6 oz and about 8.5-9 oz head light.

I string with gut in the mains between 50-55 lbs and poly in the cross at 45-50.

I actually did quite a bit of experimenting with dividing the stringjob up into multiple separately tied off sections (in order to vary the tension for more even power level distribution without risk of tension equilibration, but I never tried varying the string type too). In the end, I came back to simply omitting the outer strings. It is more reproducible and less of a pain to string, and gives me a well-rounded stringbed that does everything well.

Click to expand...

Any risk of frame damage with omitting crosses and mains?

Speaking of frame flex in various planes, what do you make of Yonex's new approach with their 3D Vector shafts? Their marketing says it's meant to improve "face stability", but I wonder what it is really all about. They definitely seem to have moved away from their old MO of stiff head/flexible throat hinge.

Speaking of frame flex in various planes, what do you make of Yonex's new approach with their 3D Vector shafts? Their marketing says it's meant to improve "face stability", but I wonder what it is really all about. They definitely seem to have moved away from their old MO of stiff head/flexible throat hinge.

Click to expand...

Interesting. They seem mostly concerned with torsional stability. The most efficient way to increase torsional stability would be to increase beam width in the throat. But increased beam width stiffens the frame and reduces spin. I think the main effect of the 3D Vector shaft is to increase throat stiffness in the plane of the stringbed, just as the AeroPro Drive throat design or POG crossbar does. So it probably does increase spin a bit.

One thing I noticed about my O3 Tour OS frames (which have only 18mm beam in the throat), is that it has terribly torsion stability on volleys (but very spin-friendly). It seems to twist in my hand even with lots of weight at 3 and 9. My RDS001mp had the same issue, almost as bad.